628.3 

\Md8zYw] 


V;^ 


4/  ^5 


Aflas^acht^seft’i  T)r^tn0pe: 
Corn  mission 


THE  REPORT 


OF  THE 


By  Geo.  E. 'Waring,  Jr.,  M.  Inst.,  C.  E. 


(Reprinted  from  the  American  Architect,  March  20  and  27,  1886.) 


1 


NEWPORT,  R.  I. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/reportofmassachuOOwari 


« 


fA3  8a,'uv 


THE  REPORT  OF  THE  MASSACHUSETTS  DRAINAGE 
COMMISSION. 

J i 

In  1884,  in  pursuance  of  a resolve  of  the  Legislature,  the  Gov- 
3rnor  of  Massachusetts  appointed  Messrs.  Adams,  Stebbins,  Con- 
verse, Hayden  and  Tuekerinan  a commission  to  investigate  condi- 
;ions  affeeting  the  purity  of  certain  rivers  of  the  State  and  to 
suggest  remedial  measures.  The  commission  employed  Mr.  Eliot 
J.  Clarke  as  its  chief  engineer,  and  Alessrs.  Joseph  P.  Davis  and 
Rudolph  Hering  as  consulting  engineers.  It  has  recently  issued  an 
)fiicial  report  of  two  hundred  and  forty-thr-ee  pages,  giving  the  result 
pf  its  labors. 

The  assumption  is  made  at  the  outset  that  the  rivers  in  question 
ire  seriously  polluted  by  sewage  and  by  manufacturing  waste,  the 
legree  of  pollution  in  the  ease  of  different  rivers  being  duly  consid- 
ered. It  is  also  assumed  that  the  best  way  to  get  rid  of  sewage,  when 
t can  safely  be  adopted,  is  to  discharge  it  into  a large  body  of  fresh 
water.  It  is  assumed  that  this  is  not  practicable  in  the  case  of  the 
avers  in  question. 

One  of  the  conclusions  reached  was  that,  owing  to  the  impossi- 
3ility  of  discharging  the  sewage  directly  into  streams  without  first 
ourifying  it,  it  is  necessary  to  exclude  storm-water  from  it  entirely. 
The  commissioners  say  : — 

“ We  do  not  provide  for  surface  drainage.  Situated  as  we  were, 
t was  found  to  involve  a scale  of  cost  which  seemed  to  us  entirely 
nadmissible.  It  may  answer  very  well  when  sewage  flows  freely 
iway  into  large  bodies  of  water,  but  if  it  requires  pumping,  treating 
)r  handling  in  any  form,  the  accession  of  rainfall  swells  the  discharge 
it  times  to  utterly  unmanageable  proportions  and  in  any  aspect  is 
/ery  costly  and  cumbrous.  We  think  that  the  figures  which  ive 
lave  to  present  will  be  sufficiently  imposing  without  one  dollar  of 
leedless  expenditure.  In  our  view  the  treatment  of  street  scour  as 
sewage  is  a luxury  rather  than  a necessity  of  municipal  life,  and  it 


4 


I'he  Report  of  the  Mossachnsett.'i  l)r(iin(t(ie  Commission. 


seems  to  iis  that  most  of  our  towns  ami  cities  fiml  tliat  their  neces- 
sities will  probably  absorb  all  the  funds  which  they  are  (juite  ready 
to  spare.” 

The  prevention  of  the  pollution  of  streams  by  the  waste  of  manu- 
facturing establishments  is  properly  regarded  as  only  incidental  to 
the  chief  ])urpose  of  this  commission,  which  is  to  prevent  access  of 
foul  or  of  partially  purified  sewage  to  streams  from  which  water  is 
taken  for  domestic  use.  This  element  of  the  problem  is  divided  into 
three  })arts : 1.  llelating  to  towns  of  which  the  sewage  may  be 

delivered  through  a common  sewer  to  one  common  area  for  purifica- 
tion. 2.  Relating  to  towns  of  which  the  sewage  may  he  delivered 
by  a common  carrier  into  the  ])resent  main  outfall  system  of  the 
City  of  Boston.  3.  Relating  to  towns  of  which  the  sewage  must  be 
treated  independently,  each  by  itself,  or  in  small  groups. 

The  largest  example  of  the  first  method  is  the  system  jiroposed 
for  the  Mystic  River  valley.  This  is  to  take  the  sewage  of  the 
whole  or  a portion  of  Stoneham,  Woburn,  Winchester,  Medford, 
Belmont,  Arlington,  Cambridge,  Somerville,  Melrose,  Malden,  Ever- 
ett, Chelsea  and  Revere,  by  a sewer  which  at  its  lower  end  is  five 
feet  in  diameter,  with  an  inclination  of  1 to  2,-500.  This  sewer  is 
to  deliver  at  a pumping-station  near  Pines  River  in  Saugus,  where 
there  is  a tract  of  more  than  1,000  acres,  which  may  be  made  avail- 
able for  its  treatment.  The  sewage  is  to  be  pumped  on  to  this  land 
and  filtered  through  it,  the  effluent  being  discharged  a little  below  the 
level  of  half-tide,  reaching  the  sea  through  Pines  River. 

The  cost  of  this  scheme  is  estimated  at  $1,520,000,  the  interest  on 
the  cost  of  construction  at  three  per  cent  being  $45, GOO  and  the 
annual  charge  for  maintenance  being  $20,000.  This  combined  yearly 
charge  is  apportioned  between  the  different  towns  in  various  amounts  , 
ranging  from  $449.85,  in  the  case  of  Somerville,  to  $16,522.44,  in  j 
the  case  of  Chelsea. 

The  largest  exainjile  of  the  second  method  is  that  of  the  lower  | 

Charles  River  valley  for  the  disposal  of  the  sewage  of  Waltham,  > 

Newton,  Watertown,  Brighton,  Charlestown,  Somerville,  Cambridge, 
Brookline,  and  part  of  Boston  proper.  The  main  sewer  of  this  sys- 
tem has  at  its  lower  end  a diameter  of  six  feet  six  inches  and  an 
inclination  of  1 to  2,800.  It  delivers  into  the  Boston  main  sewer  i 


5 


The  Report  of  the  JSIassachusett:^  iJruinage  Commission. 

at  Huntington  and  Camden  streets.  Its  cost  is  estimated  at  $1,561,- 
000,  with  a yearly  charge  for  maintenance  of  $12,000  and  for  inter- 
est of  $46,830.  To  this  is  to  be  added  an  annual  payment  of  the 
City  of  Boston  for  outfall  and  pumping  of  $29,650.  These  costi  — 
in  all  $88,480  — are  apportioned  at  rates  varying  from  $1,265.06  for 
a part  of  Boston  proper,  to  $26,288.21  in  the  case  of  Cambridge. 

A characteristic  example  of  the  third  method  is  to  be  found  in  the 
case^of  Westborough,  where  it  is  recommended  to  construct  a main 
sewer  of  fifteen-inch  pipe  with  an  inclination  of  1 to  1,500  cross- 
ing a divide  in  Park  Street  by  an  excavation  about  twenty-one  feet 
deep  and  running  westerly  to  a gravelly  knoll  of  about  fifteen  acres 
extent,  the  highest  point  of  which  is  about  seventeen  feet  above  the 
general  level  of  the  adjoining  meadow.  It  is  proposed  to  grade  this 
down  by  the  removal  of  33,000  cubic  yards  of  gravel,  establishing  a 
level  area  of  ten  acres  about  six  feet  above  the  elevation  of  spring 
freshets.  This  land  is  to  be  divided  into  four  separate  beds  to  which 
sewage  can  be  delivered  alternately.  The  cost  of  the  scheme  is  $45,- 
210.  The  charge  for  interest  at  three  per  cent  would  be  $1,356.30. 
No  estimate  for  the  cost  of  maintenance  is  given.  It  is  proposed  that 
the  City  of  Boston  shall  contribute  $15,000  toward  the  execution  of 
the  work. 

The  total  cost  of  all  the  improvements  proposed  is  $3,771,381,  on 
which  the  yearly  interest  at  three  per  cent  would  be  $113,141.43. 

Concerning  those  districts  which  cannot  be  drained  to  the  Boston 
main  outfall  it  is  assumed  that  the  only  admissible  process  for  purifi 
cation  is  what  is  known  as  intermittent  filteration. 

Chemical  treatment  is  discarded  because  of  its  inefficiency  and 
excessive  cost.  Broad  irrigation  or  “ sewage  farming  ” is  discarded 
because  of  the  large  area  required  and  because  of  the  objection  to 
the  undertaking  of  farming  operations  by  a municipalit3\  The  com- 
mission expresses  its  objection  to  chemical  treatment  as  follows  : 

“It  is  also  the  general  opinion  that  chemical  processes  in  their  best 
form  will  have  some  effect  in  removing  noxious  matter  in  solution,  but 
all  agree  that  a considerable  amount  must  be  left  in  the  effluent.  Tliis, 
liowever,  may  be  safely  discharged  into  a running  stream,  if  its  pro- 
portion to  the  supply  of  pure  water  does  not  exceed  five  per  cent.  But 
w’e  have  still  to  deal  with  the  precipitate  — about  fifty  grains,  we  will 


C L he  lleport  of  the  .]f(iss(ichHselfs  DronKKfe  ( 'oinmlssion. 

say,  to  tlie  j?allon.  It  is  very  offensive,  and  not  valuable.  Ily  subject- 
ing the  sludge  to  methods  of  pressure,  however,  most  of  the  water  has 
been  expressed  without  offense,  and  its  weight  reduced  to  about  one 
ton  to  one  hundred  and  sixty-five  thousand  gallons  of  sewage.  It  is 
possible  that  some  market-value  might  attach  to  this  residuum  in  some 
localities,  but  we  dare  not  count  upon  anything  better  than  gratuitous 
removal.  Finally,  the  cost  of  the  operation  in  England  is  estimated  to  be 
just  about  one  shilling  per  head,  or  say,  twenty-five  cents  for  each 
person  yearly.  This  does  not  include  interest  on  the  capital  invested 
in  the  works,  land,  and  so  on.  By  itself,  therefore,  it  does  not  appear 
to  be  financially  attractive.” 

[The  cost  in  England  would  have  to  be  doubled  in  calculations  for 
this  country.] 

Of  irrigation  it  is  said  that  when  it  is  especially  favored  by  cir- 
cumstances it  is  the  best  method,  but  tliat  it  is  seldom  that  these  cir- 
cumstances can  be  controlled  to  advantage.  The  process  is  thus 
described  : 

“By  this  process,  the  sewage  being  conducted  ro  land  prepared  for 
the  purpose,  is  suffered  to  flow  over  it  and  be  taken  up  in  part  by  the 
crops  raised  upon  it.  In  short,  it  is  an  attempt  to  extract  the  element 
ot  value  from  the  sewage  by  using  it  as  a fertilizer  in  farming.  The 
noxious  and  offensive  elements  are  thus  either  beneficially  appro- 
priated by  crops,  or  are  detained  in  the  soil  by  mechanical  filtration, 
or  by  long  and  repeated  exposure  to  the  air  are  decomposed,  oxidized, 
and  changed  into  harmless  matters,  so  that  the  water  which  runs  off  is 
comparatively  pure.  More  than  one  hundred  towns  in  England  employ 
this  system,  and  it  proves  eminently  satisfactory  where  conditions 
favor  its  adoption.  Its  great  drawback  is  the  vast  area  of  land 
required  for  its  successful  operation  on  a large  scale.  It  is  stated,  for 
example,  in  our  engineer’s  report,  that  Boston  would  require  a farm 
about  as  large  as  the  entire  township  of  Brookline,  if  it  wished  to 
realize  the  whole  farming  value  of  its  sewage.  The  best  English 
authorities  estimate  that  one  acre  of  land  must  be  set  aside  for  each 
one  hundred  i)ersons.  When  it  is  remembered  that  this  land  must 
all  be  tolerably  level  and  fairly  dry,  some  appreciation  is  reached  of 
the  obstacle  which  this  incident  presents  to  the  general  adoption  of 
this  system.  There  are  subsidiary  difliculties  which  will  naturally 
occur  to  all.  It  suggests  alarming  possibilities  of  farming  on  a large 
scale,  by  municipal  corj)orations.  This  prospect  may  well  damp  the 


. The  Report  of  the  Massachin^etts  Drainage  Conunission.  7 

I ■enthusiasm  of  many  wlio  would  eagerly  welcome  such  a solution  of  the 
i sewage  problem,  if  sufficient  private  farming  enterprise  were  available 
^ upon  tracts  of  land  convenient  and  adapted  to  the  purpose.  . . . Dry 
, or  wet,  night  and  day,  summer  and  winter,  the  sajne  quantity  must  be 
I taken,  or  if  there  be  any  variation,  it  is  likely  to  be  most  when  the 
I erop  needs  it  least.  And  it  is  this  obligation  which  we  fancy  would 
'■  dismay  our  farmers.  But  in  the  absence  of  such  a private  demand,  it 
is  difficult  to  see  how  the  work  can  be  carried  out  without  the  direct 
intervention  of  the  municipality.  . . . 

“In  fine,  we  believe  this  system  to  be  admirable,  if  only  a number 
of  somewhat  intractable  conditions,  some  of  which  we  have  indicated, 
can  be  controlled.  Wliere  all  things  can  be  made  to  work  together  in 
harmony,  it  offers  a reasonable  probability  of  at  least  reducing  the 
expense  of  getting  rid  of  sewage  to  a minimum.  Where  an  arrange- 
ment can  be  made  to  operate  it  in  combination  with  filtration,  so  that 
private  agriculturists  may  take  the  sewage  in  such  quantities,  and  at 
such  times,  as  they  may  find  best  for  their  crops,  and,  when  not  desired, 
can  turn  it  upon  filter-beds,  we  think  there  would  be  a fair  prospect  of 
attaining'the  largest  measure  of  utilization  with  the  least  possible  com- 
plication and  expense.” 

The  method  finally  selected  for  recommendation  is  what  is  called 
in  England  “ Intermittent  Downward  Filteration  ” The  advantages 
of  this  system  are  so  well  stated  in  the  report  that  it  would  be  impos- 
sible to  improve  on  the  instructive  text  : 

“Intermittent  filtration,  pure  and  simple,  is  the  converse  of  irrigation. 
The  latter  is  the  minimum  quantitj'  of  sewage  api)lied  to  the  maximum 
area  of  land,  and  permits  utilization,  as  well  as  purification,  to  the 
greatest  degree.  The  former  is  the  application  of  the  maximum  quan. 
tity  of  sewage  upon  the  minimum  area  of  land.  It  permits  of  only 
partial  utilization,  but,  in  our  o])inion,  of  more  jicrfect  purification. i 
It  frankly  abandons  all  dreams  of  profit;  and  in  so  doing  it  gets  rid  of 
the  two  greatest  drawbacks  to  the  system  of  irrigation.  Having  no 
crop  to  consider,  much  less  land  will  suffice,  as  it  is  found  that  the 
ground  will  filter  ten  times  as  much  sewage  as  any  croj)  upon  it  can 
profiiably  absorb.  Having  no  farming  ventures  at  stake,  we  are  relieved 
of  all  tlie  machinery  of  trade  and  difficulties  of  management.  Purifi- 
cation, not  profit,  is  the  paramount  idea.  Kot  that  it  is  impossible,  in 

1 This  opinion  is  not  well  founded. 


8 


The  lleport  of  the  Alossochiisetts  J)r(iirt(ige  (Joniiiii.ssloH. 

certain  cases,  to  combine  some  i)rofitabIe  use  witli  this  primary  inten- 
tion, but  if  so,  it  is  a purely  secondary  consideration.  Tliis  system  is 
in  effect,  notbing  but  turning  certain  tracts  of  suitable  land,  by  skilful 
l)reparation,  into  monstrous  filters.  ''J'bere  is,  properly,  no  attempt  to 
save  any  matters  held  in  suspension  or  solution  in  tbe  sewage.  The 
object  is  to  get  clear  of  them  utterly,  whether  they  be  good  or  bad, 
precious  or  worthless,  and  restore  tbe  water  to  its  first  estate,  pure  and 
undefiled,  as  it  bubbled  from  tbe  spring.  And  this  wonderful  trans- 
formation is  constantly  asserted  to  be  brought  about  by  a faithful 
application  of  the  filtration  process.  Its  advocates  maintain  that  sew- 
age, passed  through  ten  feet  of  prepared  earth,  is  good  enough  for  any 
I)urpose,  and  they  claim  it  to  be  nature’s  process,  and  intimate  that, 
after  all,  it  is  a mere  question  of  a little  more  or  less  remoteness,  and 
every  drop  of  water  on  earth  to-day  was  sewage  not  long  ago.  How- 
ever that  may  be,  it  is  sufficient  for  the  present  jjurpose  to  say  that,  if 
properly  managed,  it  does  afford  a practicable,  economical  and  efficient 
means  of  cleansing  sewage.  The  objections  to  it  are  live-fold.  It  is 
charged  to  be  wasteful,  in  that  it  feeds  no  crop.  There  is  a dread,  lest 
so  much  sewage  on  so  little  land  should  cause  offense,  especially  in 
midsummer.  Doubters  are  confident  that  the  land  must  eventually 
clog.  And  finally,  it  is  thought  that  the  cost  of  the  preparation  of  the 
land  will  be  excessive,  or  that  the  carelessness  to  be  bargained  for 
with  ordinary  management  on  a large  scale,  would  render  its  success 
utterly  problematical.  The  final  arbiter  of  all  such  questionings  is 
experience,  and  that  infallible  test  has  decided  that  these  fears  are, 
for  the  most  part,  groundless.  . . . 

“ We  have,  then,  no  hesitation  in  recommending  the  adoption  of  this 
system,  where,  for  any  reason,  broad  irrigation  is  impracticable  or 
undesirable  and  the  ocean  unattainable,  and  we  think  it  likely  to  prove 
always  a valuable  auxiliary,  in  combination  with  irrigation,  where  the 
surroundings  admit  of  its  introduction.” 

I'lie  Commission  says,  at  another  point:  — 

“ It  almost  seems  as  if  earth,  at  a touch,  took  every  baleful  element 
out  of  sewage.  We  wish  to  enq)hasize  this  immunity  from  all  essential 
I)ollution  to  air  or  water  in  the  neighborhood  of  such  lands,  because  it 
is  probable  that  such  an  ai)prehension  may  be  aroused  at  tbe  outset, 
and  it  is  possible  that  such  baseless  fears  may  be  instrumental  in  pre- 
judicing a feature  of  the  scheme  which  seems  to  us  to  offer  a singu- 
larly fortunate  escai)e  from  a very  perplexing  dilemma.” 


The  Report  of  the  Massachusetts  JJrainage  Cominissiou.  D 

However,  when  it  comes  to  its  recommendations  it  does  not  trust 
the  touch  of  earth  to  destroy  the  baleful  element.  It  says,  in  con- 
nection with  Waltham,  that  filtration  might  be  objected  to  on  the 
score  of  danger  from  the  returning  effluent  to  the  water  suj)})lies  of 
Waltham  and  Watertown,  Again,  it  says  : “ Any  sewage  field  which 
might  be  fixed  upon  should  not  even  filter  in  the  direction  of  streams 
which  supply  water  for  drinking.”  In  the  case  of  Marlborough,  it 
is  proj)Osed  to  spend  about  $22,000  for  the  sake  of  reaching  remote 
ground,  more  than  would  be  recpnred  ‘‘  to  reach  another  equally 
acceptable  were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  the  effluent  from  the  nearer 
of  the  two  might  affect  the  Boston  water-supply.”  It  recommends 
that  “ In  Westborough  as  in  Marlborough  some  additional  expense 
should  be  faced  rather  than  to  run  the  risk  of  mixing  the  results  of 
a possibly  imperfect  filtration  with  the  drinking-water  of  any  com- 
munity.” 

This  consideration  is  never  lost  sight  of  by  the  commission  nor  by 
its  engineers,  and  upon  it  are  based  most  of  the  recommendations 
made  with  reference  to  all  those  [)arts  of  the  district  which  cannot 
drain  to  the  Boston  outfall. 

The  general  theory  on  which  the  recommendations  are  based  may 
fairly  be  formulated  thus  : 

1.  Unless  where  access  to  tide-water  can  be  given  in  an  unobjec- 
tionable manner,  the  sewage  must  be  purified  before  it  enters  any 
stream. 

2.  Purification  by  chemical  means  would  not  be  complete  and  would 
cost  too  much. 

3.  Broad  irrigation  when  properly  controlled  secures  a perfect 
effluent  and  an  agricultural  advantage,  but  it  would  take  too  much 
land  and  would  involve  the  undertaking  of  farming  operations  by 
municipalities.  If  not  always  properly  regulated  it  might  result  in 
the  discharge  of  crude  sewage  over  the  surface  into  the  stream. 

4.  Intermittent  filtration  is  not  subject  to  these  disadvantages;  it 
may  be  supplemented  by  irrigation  to  any  desired  extent,  and  its  result 
is  perfectly  satisfactory. 

5.  However,  to  make  assurance  doubly  sure,  to  avoid  an  infraction 
of  the  statute  requiring  sewage  to  be  kept  out  of  streams  used  as 


10 


7V/e  Jleport  of  the  Afdssacli useffs  l)r(iioa(je  ( dtiinnlssion. 


sources  of  domestic  sn})))ly,  and  to  see  that  no  unrecognized  and 
unsuspected  “virulent  j)oison  from  a j)reviou.s  sewage  pollution” 
shall  enter  the  water-supply  rivers,  even  intermittent  filtration  areas 
must,  wherever  possible,  be  moved  over  beyond  the  edges  of  the 
Avater-shed  and  made  to  drain  into  some  stream  not  now  under  the 
ban  of  the  statute. 

6.  As  the  ])rotected  water-shed  is  so  larire,  as  the  towns  are  so 
thiek  and  growing  so  fast,  it  is  not  Avise  to  attempt  the  j)urifieation  of 
their  eflluent  near  at  hand.  So  far  as  ])0ssible  their  sewage,  should 
tloAv  into  truidc  lines  and  be  carried  to  remote  })oints,as  to  tlie  Saugus 
Plain. 

7.  As  the  sewage  Avill  have  to  he  carried  tlirough  a costly  main 
scAvcr,  ])umped  at  its  ])oint  of  destination  and  filtered  through  earth, 
everything  except  sewage  must  be  ke])t  out  of  it.  The  luxury  of 
treating  other  Avaters  would  be  too  expensive. 

This  formula  has  been  adhered  to  as  closely,  as  carefully,  and  as 
consistently  as  the  nature  of  things  Avould  alloAv.  All  of  its  details 
have  been  Avorked  out  with  indefatigable  pains  and  Avith  great  skill 
and  at  much  cost.  If  Ave  accept  the  formula  as  correct,  sufhcient, 
Avell  founded  and  controlling,  no  (jucsticn  can  he  raised  from  any  side 
as  to  the  satisfactory  and  conclusive  chaiacter  of  the  Avork  done. 

There  is  })crha])s  a point  of  view  from  which  some  details  of  the 
scheme,  details  enormously  affecting  its  completeness  and  its  effi- 
ciency, take  a someAvhat  different  asjiect. 

First  of  all,  it  is  not  ])leasant  to  give  up  our  reliance  on  the  good 
old  motto  “ Divide  el  Imperaf  Avhich  has  so  long  been  the  Avatchword 
of  the  sanitarian.  It  has  generally  been  supposed  that  the  more 
closely  the  details  of  cleansing  Avork  come  under  the  control  and  are 
made  to  im})Ose  their  burden  upon  those  producing  the  Avaste,  the 
more  economical  and  the  more  complete  might  he  the  result.  Under 
the  scheme  ])roposed,  it  Avould  be  at  least  a matter  of  indifference  to 
the  [)eo})le  of  AVinchester,  for  example,  AA’hether  they  sent  much  or 
little  scAvage  for  transportation  through  the  main  seAver,  and  to  be 
})umj)ed  for  [)uriliea( ion  in  Saugus;  so  it  Avould  be  a matter  of  indif- 
fei'cnce  to  the  ])eo])leof  AAhdtham  and  AAhitertoAvn  Avhether  they  con- 
tributed much  or  tittle  of  the  Hoav  to  be  delivered  through  the  Boston 


The  Beporl  of  the  MassachuKetts  Droinage  ('ommisslon.  11 


main  and  pumped  at  the  outfall  station.  This  consideration  might 
seriously  affect  the  magnitude  of  the  problem.  Again,  there  is  noth- 
ing more  rare  than  a tight  sewer,  and  in  many  of  the  towns  to  be 
drained  the  sewers  pass  through  saturated  subsoil.  That  is,  they 
would  act  as  underdrains,  and  the  amount  of  subsoil  water  contrib- 
uted, greater  in  some  places  than  in  others,  would,  ])robably,  at  cer- 
tain seasons  — and  these  the  worst  seasons  for  purification  — amount 
to  a very  important  factor.  Then  too,  it  is  very  well  to  say  that 
these  outlets  are  provided  only  for  a separate  system  of  sewerage 
throughout  the  whole  district  to  be  relieved  ; but  who  is  to  regulate 
this  and  how  exactly  will  it  be  regulated?  It  would  be  easy,  no 
doubt,  to  prevent  the  connection  of  surface  openings  in  the  streets. 
It  would  not  be  easy  — at  all  events  for  those  who  control  the  gen- 
eral system  — to  pcdice  the  many  towns  connected  so  fre(juently  and 
so  thoroughly  as  would  be  necessary  to  prevent  the  clandestine  dis- 
charge of  roof  and  yard  water  through  house-drains,  and  an  enor- 
mous volume  from  this  source  would  come  to  flood  the  purification- 
field  at  the  time  when  it  would  — from  rain  falling  directly  upon  it 
— be  least  able  to  receive  sewage. 

These  considerations  suggest  a difficulty  of  great  magnitude.  It 
is  found  in  England  that  where  the  “ separate  ” system  is  used,  there 
is  a very  great  increase  of  flow  during  rain-storms,  and  from  under- 
ground drainage  after  rains.  Bailey  Denton  says,  with  reference  to 
Great  INIalvern  : “ Idie  sewage  proper,  measured  by  the  water-sipiply, 
amounts  to  150,000  gallons  a day,  but  in  looking  to  the  dilution  due 
to  subsoil  water  wdiicli  raises  it  to  350,000  gallons  a day,  etc.”  In 
Abingdon,  the  sewage  discharged  in  dry  weather  amounts  to  200,- 
000  gallons  “increased  to  double  that  quantity  in  wet  weather,  the 
excess  being  due  to  the  fact  that  the  private  sewers  communicating 
with  the  public  sewers  in  the  town  receive  the  rain  run  off  the  back 
roofs  and  impervious  surfaces  connected  with  the  house.” 

Therefore,  in  regulating  the  scale  on  which  these  works  are  to  be 
constructed,  attention  must  be  given  not  alone  to  [)reseut  and  future 
population,  but  to  the  increase  of  subsoil  water  leaking  into  the 
sewers  and  of  roof  and  yard  water  clandestinely  introduced  into 
them  — a very  uncertain  element  of  the  calculation.  However  great 


12 


The  Jieport  of  the  Mossdchusrlls  Droiuoge  Connn'o^sion. 


it  may  be,  an  addition  must  be  made  to  it  to  j)rovide  for  tbe  infiltration 
of  soil  water  en  route,  es[)eeially  after  tlie  main  sewer  dips  below  the 
permanent  water-table  of  tbe  ground.  All  this  foreign  water  intro- 
duced into  the  sewers  becomes  foul  water  and  must  be  treated  at  the 
same  cost  with  tbe  much  smaller  volume  of  actual  domestic  sewage 
provided  for. 

Concerning  the  relative  advant.ages  of  broad  irrigation  and  inter- 
mittent filtration,  the  case  is,  in  the  main,  well  stated.  Doubtless 
the  former  would  be  used  with  the  latter  as  a means  of  relief  or  as  a 
means  of  agricultural  advantage,  much  more  generally  than  the 
commission  has  assumed.  This  would  be  regidated  by  ex})erience. 

The  recpiirement  that,  so  far  as  ])ossible,  irrigation-areas  shall  be 
removed  beyond  tbe  limit  of  the  Boston  water-shed,  seems  fanciful, 
when  we  consider  the  manner  in  which  the  streams  of  that  water- 
supply  receive  their  chief  contributions.  The  amount  of  water  flowing 
to  them  over  the  surface  of  the  ground  is  insignificant,  when  com- 
pared with  that  which  comes  to  them  from  what  Mr.  Clarke  aj)tly 
describes  as  a “ wet  sponge” — the  saturated  subsoil  of  the  district. 

Rainwater  and  other  surface-water,  however  impure  it  may  be,  is 
purified  before  it  penetrates  far  into  the  earth.  AVhether  it  be  the 
slops  thrown  over  the  back-yards  of  a town,  or  that  which  soaks 
into  the  surface  of  the  street,  it  does  not  descend  far  before  it  is  essen- 
tially purified.  The  same  would  be  true  of  sewage  intermittently 
delivered  on  to  ground  prepared  for  its  purification. 

The  same  is  not  true  with  reference  to  the  foul  water  entering  the 
soil  at  lower  depths.  Every  cesspool,  every  privy-vault,  every  leak- 
ing house-drain,  every  leaking  town-sewer,  delivers  its  foul  flow  into 
ground  that  is  powerless  to  purify  it  except  by  dilution.  The  stream 
flowing  through  a porous  subsoil  toward  the  river  by  which  it  is  car- 
ried away,  cannot  pass  under  a small  cesspool-village  wuthout  receiving 
enormously  more  filth,  and  filth  of  an  enormously  more  dangerous  char- 
acter than  could  [)ossibly  be  deiuved  from  any  such  system  of  filtra- 
tion as  a modern  community  would  think  of  tolerating  in  connec- 
tion with  its  sewage-works.  If  all  of  the  sewage  of  Natick  and 
outh  Framingham  were  filtered  through  a field  five  rods  away  fromS 
tlui  bank  of  the  river  (under  the  most  ordinary  regulation),  the 
amount  of  organic  matter  and  the  amount  of  infection  that  would 


The  Report  of  the  J\[(irsachusetts  Drahioge  ( ■oiniiiission.  13 


thus  reach  the  river  would  be  as  nothing  coin{)ared  with  what 
would  come  with  the  unfiltered  sewage  above  referred  to,  entering 
the  underground  stream  direcdly  at  hundreds  of  points  throughout 
these  two  towns,  as  it  would  still  continue  to  do  after  the  completion 
of  the  proposed  work. 

It  is  not  always  easy  to  define  a water-shed.  It  is  by  no  means 
alway  s bounded  by  the  top  of  the  ridge  of  land  bordering  it.  It  is 
not  seldom  that  a town,  lying  on  a slope  belonging  to  one  water-shed, 
really  belongs,  so  far  as  its  subsoil  water  is  concerned,  to  another 
water-shed,  for  the  underground  currents  are  controlled  by  sub- 
surface-formation, not  by  topograph}'.  A main  sewer,  built  to  carry 
the  sewage  over  a long  course,  and  to  discharge  near  a river  not 
belonging  to' the  Boston  basin,  would  probably  deliver  enough  crude 
sewage  by  the  way,  through  leaking-joints,  to  contaminate  seriously 
the  subterranean  watei’-llow  of  the  Boston  district. 

The  rej)ort  is,  therefore,  open  to  the  criticism  that  it  evinces  too 
little  confidence  in  the  purification  that  may  be  effected  by  the  pro- 
cess which  it  recommends,  and  has  disregarded  a source  of  impurity 
which  is  serious  at  the  point  of  origin,  and  which  may  be  greatly 
extended  and  distributed  by  the  very  process  recommended  to 
remove  it.  Sewage  cannot  safely  be  carried  through  a water-bear- 
ing, porous  soil  in  sewers  of  ordinary  construction,  for  these  cannot 
always  and  certainly  be  known  to  be  tight. 

There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  greatest  security  — and  a much- 
needed  security  it  is  — will  be  gained  by  avoiding,  so  far  as  pos- 
sible, all  transportation  of  sewage.  It  should  be  got  out  of  the  deep 
ground  as  soon  as  possible,  and  the  purifying  process  should  be 
applied  as  near  as  may  be  to  the  point  of  production. 

Concerning  the  danger  to  which  the  water-supply  is  subjected,  the 
consulting  engineers  say  : — 

“ Tlie  sewage  must  be  very  thorougldy  treated  before  entering  them, 
to  guard  against  the  transmission  of  disease,  liable  to  be  produced  by 
specific  poisons  or  infectious  germs.  It  is  not  possible  to  set  up  an 
absolute  standard  for  this  purpose.  Although  the  water  may  be  clear, 
and  chemical  analysis  may  show  it  to  be  of  good  quality,  it  can  still 
hold  a virulent  poison  from  a previous  sewage  pollution.  Mr.  11.  Pum- 


14 


The  Repoii  of  the  Jfossfirhusetts  Drauiaf/e  Commission. 


pelly  lias  sliown,  by  experiments  on  tlie  filtering  eapacity  of  soils,  that 
otherwise  jiiire  water  readily  carries  bacterial  infection  along  with  it 
when  percolating  through  sand  and  other  common  materials  of  the 
ground.” 

It  is  possible  that  clear  water,  which  chemical  analysis  would 
indicate  to  be  of  good  (juality,  can  hold  such  virulent  ])oison.  'I'here 
is  no  evidence  to  show  that  water,  made  clear  and  pure  by  inter- 
mittent filtration  or  hy  irrigation-treatment,  does  hold  such  poison, 
and  the  jirobabilities  are  all  against  it.  Pumjielly’s  experiments 
are  not  at  all  in  ])oint.  Those  experiments  related  only  jirospec- 
tively  to  the  filtering  capacity  of  soils.  The  nearest  ajijiroacli  to 
a soil  used  in  any  of  those  exiieriments  was  loess  taken  forty  feet 
below  the  surface,  and  in  nowise  comparable  with  ordinary  soil  as 
a ])urifier  of  foul  waters.  Most  of  the  experiments  were  made  w'ith 
calcined  sand  or  other  sterile  media.  All  that  they  j)roved  was, 
that  sterilized  sand,  asbestos,  pure  charcoal,  kaolin  and  loess  will 
not  remove  certain  bacteria  from  water  filtered  through  it,  and  this 
has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  ])rohlem  in  hand. 

No  instance  has  come  to  my  knowledge,  nor  do  I believe  that  an 
instance  has  ever  been  recorded,  where  sewage  filtered  through 
surface-soil,  with  a reasonable  intermit  fence  of  application,  has  ever 
carried  the  germs  of  disease  into  the  subsoil.  Tn  investigations 
made  at  Gennevilliers  it  was  found  that,  while  the  sewage  n])|)lied  at 
the  surface  contained  over  twenty  thousand  living  organisms  per 
cubic  centimeter,  the  effluent  taken  from  the  under-drains,  through 
which  the  purified  sewage  ])asses  away,  contained  only  a dozen 
harmless  bacteria.  One  closely-covered,  unventilated  cesspool, 
standing  within  the  drainage-reach  of  a brook,  would  probably 
deliver  more  “ germs  ” in  a day,  than  a well-used  irrigation-field  of 
ten  acres  would  deliver  to  the  subsoil  s<ream  flowing  under  it  in  a 
year. 

'I'he  conditions  established  in  the  report,  for  the  application  of 
intermittent  fill  rat  ion  indicate  that,  wherever  possible,  there  shotdd 
be.  a great  dej)fh  of  well-drained  earth  between  the  surface  and  the 
])ermanent  water-levid  of  the  ground.  This  is  well,  of  course,  as 
facilitating  thorough  amaition,  and  possibly  as  increasing  the  future 
purifying  capacity  of  the  area,  but  it  is  not  imperative,  d'he  ‘])urifi- 


The  Report  of  the  Massachusetts  Drairuiffe  Commission.  15 


cation  takes  place  very  near  to  the  surface,  and  it  is  effected  by  pro- 
cesses which,  under  natural  conditions,  are  not  active  at  a great  depth. 
Therefore,  while  it  is  advantageous  to  secure  a depth  of  six  feet  or 
more,  it  is  not  worth  the  inordinate  cost  of  heavy  grading  which  such 
a condition  would  often  imjdy.  A modification  of  the  recommenda- 
tions, in  this  respect,  would  make  many  an  area  available  quite  near 
to  a town,  while  ground  meeting  the  more  rigid  requirement  could 
be  reached  only  at  much  expense,  and  at  the  risk  of  fouling  the 
ground-water  with  crude  sewage  in  transit. 

It  would  seem  that,  in  this  respect,  as  in  some  others,  too  much 
reliance  has  been  placed  on  the  actual  experience  of  English- 
sewage  farms.  It  should  be  remembered  that  these  farms  were 
established,  and  the  general  method  of  their  management,  as  well 
as  the  theory  of  their  operation,  were  pitched,  fifteen  or  twenty 
years  ago.  As  English  engineers  sometimes  fail  to  adopt  new  ideas 
till  others  have  made  them  old,  there  has  been  no  recent  material 
modification  of  the  principle  of  their  construction  and  management. 
There  has,  during  this  time,  been  a very  material  increase  of  knowl- 
edge on  the  subject,  and  if  all  the  sewage-farms  of  England  could 
be  blotted  out,  and  if  the  art  could  be  considered  anew,  in  the 
light  of  what  is  now  known,  some  important  modifications  would  be 
made.  Therefore,  while  the  experience  there  gained  is  most  con- 
vincing and  of  great  value,  we  ought  not  to  regulate  the  scope  and 
scale  of  our  works  according  to  what  we  find  there. 

It  is  not  necessary  that  broad-irrigation  farms  should  be  level,  or 
nearly  so ; it  is  only  desirable.  However  irregular  the  surface,  and 
however  steep  its  slopes,  it  is  susceptible  of  a complete  and  siifK- 
ciently  uniform  flooding  by  processes  well-known  to  those  who 
arrange  works  of  irrigation,  where  even  a steep  mountain-side  is 
made  to  receive  an  adequate  flow  in  all  its  parts.  Then,  too,  it  is 
important  that  any  system  of  irrigation  should  also  be  only  a system 
of  infiltration.  No  sewage  should  ever,  unless  by  a method  securing 
long  exposure,  flow  to  a surface-carrier  which  would  lead  it  to  a 
water-course ; the  area  covered  by  the  discharge  of  sewage  should  be 
more  than  large  enough  to  absorb  it  completely.  This  is  a matter  of 
easy  regulation,  and  there  would  be  no  excuse,  were  such  a system 


IG 


The  lleport  of  the  fMassoch usetls  J>r<i'uia(ie  ( hnn mission. 

a(loj)te(l,  for  sewage  from  any  lialf-well  ai'ranged  se])arate  system 
ever  reacliing  a water-course  before  filtration.  The  ease  with  wliich 
this  restriction  could  he  enforced  Avonld  he  greatly  aided  hy  a suit- 
able level  tract  available  for  more  intensified  filtration  when  the 
ground  might  he  saturated  with  rain,  or  when,  for  any  other  reason 
it  Avas  desirable  to  dispose  of  the  flow  differently. 

In  looking  over  the  whole  subject,  it  seems  curious  that  five  gentle- 
men selected  by  the  highest  authority  as  fittest  for  the  conduct  of  this 
study,  as  well  as  the  three  engineers  chosen  by  themselves  to  aid 
them,  should  liaA'e  failed  so  signally  to  acipiaint  themselves  with 
the  present  state  of  human  knowledge  concerning  it.  Indeed,  they 
seem,  one  and  all,  except  for  a brief  foot-note  by  Mr.  Clarke,  to  he 
quite  unaware  of  the  existence  of  the  most  interesting,  the  most 
important  and  the  most  useful  facts  that  have  ever  been  established 
in  connection  with  the  purification  of  scAvage  by  application  to  land. 
The  literary  fancy  of  the  commissioner  avIio  Avrote  the  report  was 
inspired  by  a recognized  effect,  of  which  he  did  not  recognize  the 
cause,  Avhen  he  referred  to  Avhat  could  be  done  by  “ the  earth  at  a 
touch,”  hut  noAvhere  in  the  whole  document  is  there  more  than  Mr. 
Clarke’s  casual  allusion  to  the  noAv  Avell-knoAvn  action  hy  Avhich  alone 
this  touch  is  made  effective. 

So  far  as  scientific  knoAvledge  is  concerned,  this  report  might  have 
been  Avritten  a dozen  years  ago,  before  such  knowledge  existed. 
There  is  evinced  an  implicit  and  all-suflicient  faith  in  the  practical 
authorities  of  England  ; while  the  achievements  of  the  biologists  of 
England,  of  Germany,  and  of  France,  seem  hardly  to  have  been  sus- 
pected. Tyndal,  Warrington,  Pasteur,  Schloesing,  Muntz,  Koch  and 
others  who  have  developed  the  true  theory  of  putrefaction  and  nitrifi- 
cation, seem  not  to  have  been  thought  of  in  this  connection.  Yet  the 
jiractical  operations  of  beer-making  have  not  been  more  clearly  sliOAvn 
to  he  governed  by  the  agency  of  micro-organisms  than  have  the  practi- 
cal operations  of  sewage  purification. 

The  failure  to  give  Aveight  to  this  neAv  knoAvledge  Avould  be  of  less 
consecpience  — hut  it  would  still  he  of  conseipience  in  a learned  essay 
like  this  — if  the  neglected  knoAvledge  Avere  not  necessary  to  the 
giving  of  sound  advice.  Until  very  lately  Ave  have  pinned  our  faith 


The  Report  of  the  Mcmachusetts  Drninage  Commission.  17 

to  “aeration,”  “oxidation”  and  “the  action  of  vegetation,”  and 
have  tried  to  guess  how  we  miglit  best  suit  our  projects  to  the 
methods  thus  suggested.  We  now  know  that,  so  far  as  the  removal 
of  nitrogenous  matters  from  sewage  in  tlie  soil  is  concerned,  aeration 
is  a condition,  oxidation  is  an  effect,  and  the  action  of  vegetation  is 
an  unneeded  sequel  to  the  real  purifying  cause.  The  cause  itself  lies 
in  the  life  processes  of  minute  organisms  which,  and  ivJiich  alone, 
compass  the  complete  destruction  of  the  filth  that  it  is  our  aim  to 
annihilate. 

An  attempt  to  tell  a community  how  to  get  rid  of  its  organic 
wastes  by  soil  purification  which  is  not  based  on  what  is  known  of 
these  processes  — comparatively  little  though  it  is  — is  empirical. 
Before  the  facts  were  known,  such  an  attempt  was  more  than  justifi- 
able; now  that  they  are  known,  it  is  hardly  to  be  passed  over  with- 
out comment  in  the  case  of  such  thorough  and  costly  work  as  that 
under  consideration. 

Tested  by  existing  positive  knowledge,  the  recommendations  of 
this  commission,  and  the  hypotheses  on  which  they  are  based,  are 
seen  to  need  much  reconsideration  and  modification.  In  such  recon- 
sideration the  following  facts,  among  others,  should  be  regarded  : — 

1.  It  would  be  extravagant,  under  such  regulations  as  would  nec- 
essarily be  enforced  in  Massachusetts,  to  adopt  the  English  estimate 
of  one  acre  to  each  one  hundred  of  the  population.  That  means 
providing  for  an  enormous  amount  of  storm-water,  often  for  very  care- 
less farming,  and  generally  for  a very  wide  margin  to  spare.  If  the 
Massachusetts  towns  were  to  be  sewered  on  a strictly  separate  sys- 
tem, which  no  English  town  is,  it  would  be  perfectly  safe  to  provide 
one  acre  for  each  five  hundred  of  the  population.  Indeed,  wherever 
the  soil  is  open  and  free,  this  figure  might  be  doubled,  and  that,  too, 
without  interfering  with  an  important  agricultural  use  of  the  sewage, 
as  at  Gennevilliers,  where  the  sewage  never  flows  over  the  land  at 
all,  all  being  absorbed  laterally  from  ditches,  and  where  the  agricul- 
tural result  has  been  so  remarkable  as  to  increase  the  rental  of  the 
land  fivefold. 

2.  Sewage,  as  such,  is  not  taken  up  by  crops.  Before  its  fertiliz- 


1 


18  'J'he  Report  oj  the  M((ss(ich usetts  J)r(iui(i(/e  (.'oiii/nis.sifoi. 

ing  ])arts  l)ecome  available  foi’  llieir  use,  their  conilunations  have  been 
broken  down  and  their  oi’ganic  ebai-acter  destroyed. 

3.  Sewage  does  not  contain  a “virulent  ])oison,”  using  tlie  words  in 
their  ordinary  acceptation.  Its  morbific  effect  is  due  to  organized 
and  living  entities.  These  are  not  immortal.  They  are  subject  to 
the  dissolution  that  awaits  all  living  things.  "I'hey  seem  to  be  pecu- 
liarly subject  to  the  action  of  the  bacterium  which  pro<luces  ordinary 
putrefaction.  Experiments  in  the  Surgeon  General’s  laboratory  at 
^^"ashington  have  shown  that  in  the  cultivation  of  specific  germs  it 
is  as  important  to  exclude  the  hacterium-termo  as  it  is  in  starting 
young  vegetaliles  to  get  rid  of  “ jiusley.”  If  this  greedy  scavenger 
once  gains  a foothold  he  sweeps  the  gelatine  field  clean  of  all  artifi- 
cial cultures.  There  is  not  the  least  reason  to  doubt,  and  there  is 
much  reason  to  suppose,  that  in  the  soil,  and  in  an  aerated  stream,  it 
performs  the  same  office,  exce[)t,  in  the  latter  case,  under  very  low 
temperatures.  In  the  soil  the  sewage  supjilies  the  re([uisite  beat  even 
in  winter. 

4.  There  is  also  reason  to  believe  that  the  organic  parts  of  sewage, 
like  all  other  organic  wastes  added  to  the  soil  or  to  the  river,  or  so 
much  of  them  at  least  as  is  not  used  as  food  by  insects,  fishes,  etc., 
is  destroyed  always  and  only  by  a jirocess  akin  to  })utrefaction. 
This  is  a process  of  oxidation  which  cannot  take  place  without  the 
intervention  of  life-processes.  This  being  the  case,  what  we  have  to 
provide  are  the  conditions  which  are  best  suited  to  the  development  of 
the  destroying  organism.  This  involves  aeration,  it  results  indirectly 
in  oxidation,  and  it  furnishes  pabulum  for  vegetation,  if  vegetation  is 
there.  The  destruction  of  the  waste  must  take  place  before  roots  can 
act  on  it.  Vegetation  is  not  necessary  for  purification. 

The  purification  at  the  Sherburn  Prison  may  be  defective.  The 
conditions  arediflicult  — more  difficult  than  was  understood  when  the 
work  was  done  (in  1879)  — but  the  only  evidence  of  im})urity  that  has 
ever  come  to  my  notice  is  the  detection  of  chlorides  and  nitrates  in  the 
outflow.  It  is  now  known  that,  from  a sanitary  point  of  view,  chlo- 
rides and  niti-ates,  while  they  indicate  a sewage  origin,  indicate  also 
the  annihilation  of  the  sewage  character.  They  are  harmless  mineral 
matters,  whicdi,  if  unaccom{)anied  by  incompletely  purified  sewnige, 
may  be  admitted  into  drinking-water  streams  without  disadvantage. 


The  Report  of  the  Massachusetts  Drainage  Commission.  19 

5.  The  process  of  destruction,  under  natural  conditions,  takes 
place  only  in  or  very  near  the  fertile  soil  at  the  surface  — probably 
to  the  extent  of  at  least  nine-tenths,  within  the  first  six  inches,  and 
practically  not  at  all  below  a depth  of  twelve  inches.  We  have  as 
yet  no  means  of  knowing  how  far  below  the  surface  the  activity  of 
the  process  maybe  carried  by  overdosing  the  surface  layer  and  send- 
ing impurities  farther  down.  The  indications  are  that  it  would 
never  go  much  below  twelve  or  fifteen  inches.  Therefore,  while  an 
additional  four  or  five  feet  of  loose  gravel  or  sand  may  facilitate  the 
escape  of  the  purified  water  and  hasten  the  admission  of  air,  we  can 
get  on  with  much  less  than  this,  and  it  would  often  be  worth  while  in 
the  interest  of  economy  as  well  as  of  fertility,  to  double  the  breadth 
rather  than  the  depth.  If  this  is  admitted  to  be  true,  the  proposed 
extra  expenditure  of  $45,000  at  Westborough  is  not  necessary,  and 
the  same  condition  would  probably  obtain  in  other  cases  considered. 

6.  The  destroying  organisms  above  referred  to  being  active  only  in 
the  surface  soil,  there  exists,  so  far  as  we  yet  know,  no  substitute  for 
them  in  the  subsoil,  however  porous.  The  danger  to  our  water 
courses  comes  chiefly  from  the  leakage  of  filth  at  considerable  depths 
especially  of  filth  which  has  fermented  without  sufficient  access  of 
air.  It  is  here  that  we  ought  chiefly  to  look  for  our  means  of  pro- 
tection. Not  only  should  everything  be  done  that  can  be  done  to 
make  local  drains  and  sewers  tight  and  to  abolish  cesspools  and  privy 
vaults  altogether,  but  we  should,  as  far  as  possible,  avoid  the  risk  that 
inevitably  attends  'the  transportation  of  sewage  through  deep  con- 
duits, as  these  are  practically  certain  to  be  made.  This  may  not  be 
avoided  within  the  towns  themselves,  but  it  seems  most  unwise  to  in- 
cur the  further  risk  of  conveyance  through  long  collecting  sewers. 

There  are  other  details  which  should  be  regarded  in  any  attempt 
to  solve  such  a problem  as  the  one  in  hand,  but  these  are  enough  to 
indicate  the  insufficiency  of  the  work  described,  and  to  suggest  doubts 
as  to  the  wisdom  of  the  recommendations  made  in  this  report. 

Should  the  subject  be  taken  up  again,  with  due  regard  to  the  facts 
above  suggested,  the  scheme  devised  v.'ill  have  a much  less  gigantic 
aspect;  the  result  will  be  better,  and  the  cost  will  be  less. 


Oaylora  Bros. 

Makers 

Syracuse,  v 

JAM.  21, 1991 


